A sem observation on the efficiency preparation of oval canals using hand and engine-driven instruments.
10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.2.141
- Author:
Uk SONG
1
;
Bock HUR
;
Hee Joo LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Korea. uksong@freechal.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Oval canal;
Canal preparation;
Smear layer;
SEM
- MeSH:
Aluminum;
Diamond;
Hand*;
Smear Layer;
Tooth;
Water
- From:Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
2004;29(2):141-146
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of the preparation of oval canals using hand and engine-driven instruments with SEM observation. Thirty single-rooted teeth with oval canal were used in this study. The teeth were divided into 3 groups. In group A, the teeth were instrumented up to a size 35 K-file using RC-prep and irrigated with 5% NaOCl between each file size. In group B, the teeth were instrumented with Profile according to the manufacture's instructions using RC-Prep and irrigated with 5% NaOCl between each file size. In group C, the teeth were instrumented with GT file according to the manufacture's instructions using RC-prep and irrigated with 5% NaOCl between each file size. Then, in all teeth, a final flush of 5ml of distilled water delivered for 30s. Canals were dried with sterile standardized paper points. After preparing the canals, the teeth were sectioned along their mesial and diatal surfaces by using low-speed diamond disc, chisel and mallet. Each root section was then dehydrated in graded concentration of alcohol (70, 80, 90, 100%), mounted on an aluminum stub, sputter-coated with gold-palladium and observed with scanning electron microscope (HITACHI S-4200) in middle and apical area. The results of this study were as follows: 1. In the middle area, group B and group C showed less smear layer than group A, and it was statistically significant (p < 0.05). 2. In the middle area, group B showed greater smear layer than group C, but it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). 3. In the apical area, group C showed less smear layer than group A, and it was statistically significant (p < 0.05). 4. In the apical area, group A showed greater smear layer than group B, but it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). 5. In the apical area, group B showed greater smear layer than group C, but it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). 6. In all groups, the middle area was less smear layer than the apical area, and it was statistically significant (p < 0.05).
